Does anyone else like optical illusions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dembadon
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Optical
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the fascination with optical illusions, particularly those found on the website http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/. Participants share their experiences with various illusions, such as the "Breathing Square" and "Magic Eye" images, discussing how manipulation of visual perception can create misleading effects. The conversation also touches on the subjective nature of experiencing these illusions and the potential for measuring their effectiveness, although no standardized metrics currently exist. Users express enjoyment and curiosity about the science behind optical illusions and their impact on perception.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of visual perception and cognitive psychology
  • Familiarity with optical illusion examples and their mechanisms
  • Basic knowledge of experimental design for measuring subjective experiences
  • Awareness of resources like http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/ and http://www.magiceye.com/ for practical exploration
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the psychological principles behind optical illusions, focusing on visual perception theories
  • Explore the methodology for measuring the effectiveness of optical illusions in experimental settings
  • Investigate the latest scientific papers on the mapping of mind to brain regarding visual perception
  • Experiment with various optical illusions on platforms like http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/ to enhance understanding
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for psychologists, educators, artists, and anyone interested in the intersection of visual perception and cognitive science, as well as those looking to enhance their understanding of optical illusions.

Dembadon
Gold Member
Messages
658
Reaction score
88
http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/

I just spent the last 45 minutes looking at some of the demonstrations on that site. Apart from sore eyes and a minor headache, I find it fascinating. Most of the demonstrations allow you to manipulate sliders to adjust different aspects of the illusion. Some of them seemed bogus: telling me things were or weren't moving when I swore otherwise. I wouldn't know how to go about proving any shenanigans, though.

Anyway, does anyone else like optical illusions? If so, what are some of your favorites?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org


Good catch.
I have seen a lot of them previously.

The new ones for me were the blurring ie the angry face and the Lincoln pictures.
Never used to understand what squinting ever did for sight improvement - now I know.
 


256bits said:
Good catch.
I have seen a lot of them previously.

The new ones for me were the blurring ie the angry face and the Lincoln pictures.
Never used to understand what squinting ever did for sight improvement - now I know.

I'd only seen a few of them before. One of my favorites was the "Breathing Square." It looked like the square was getting bigger, but that's only because our initial view is limited by the slits.
 


Dembadon said:
http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/

I just spent the last 45 minutes looking at some of the demonstrations on that site. Apart from sore eyes and a minor headache, I find it fascinating. Most of the demonstrations allow you to manipulate sliders to adjust different aspects of the illusion. Some of them seemed bogus: telling me things were or weren't moving when I swore otherwise. I wouldn't know how to go about proving any shenanigans, though.

Anyway, does anyone else like optical illusions? If so, what are some of your favorites?

Here's another page:

http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/~akitaoka/index-e.html
 
Is there a measure of how effective an optical illusion is?
 
Loren Booda said:
Is there a measure of how effective an optical illusion is?

Yes, it's called the "dude, come look at this" and it's units are "WTF?"
 
Loren Booda said:
Is there a measure of how effective an optical illusion is?
You can certainly measure the effect on the individual compared to other individuals within a single illusion (http://ripplestat.com/dnlds/task_directions/ml_directions.pdf" ) given that that some properties of the illusion can be quantified.

If you were to do this with several different illusions, you might be able to see which illusion fooled more people in a given sample, but I don't think there's some standard measure established; External validity is a huge problem with this complex of a system. Mapping mind to brain is one of the big projects going on in the scientific community right now, so there could very well be some paper/s on your very question for all I know. There's lots of papers (some very speculative) on the subject of subjectiveness.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttd0YjXF0no
 
  • #10
I loved the "magic eye" books.

Here is one. Just touch your nose to the screen and slowly pull away without focusing, once you see the 3D image, you can focus on it. Doing it on the computer is so much easier than the book!

http://www.magiceye.com/
 
  • #11
Evo said:
I loved the "magic eye" books.

Here is one. Just touch your nose to the screen and slowly pull away without focusing, once you see the 3D image, you can focus on it. Doing it on the computer is so much easier than the book!

http://www.magiceye.com/

I like them as well. I was never able to get it to work with the method you mention, though. The only way is works for me is to "defocus" my eyes and kind-of stare through the page for a few seconds. When I refocus them, I can usually see the embedded image. Putting my nose on the page and pulling it away never really worked as well, even though the focus/defocus component is the same for each.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Magic-eye is better than drugs.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K